Russia, neither the elites, nor the general population, have any historic experience with the development of a law-based professional state without which there is no path to democracy. In all probability, the USA will see a universal mandate, single payer health insurance, and will be free of military-style guns in private hands, before Russia will see a liberal democracy. Putin saw the realities of Russia in 2000. He literally spoke of directed democracy and the dictatorship of the law. Although many American law and political science scholars know all this just as well, US-policies repeatedly ignored the historic realities of Russia and the post-soviet space. Furthermore, US-policies and commentators frequently 'saw the speck of saw-dust in the eyes of 'Putin' but refused to see the log in their own'.

Refreshing and sobering to be reminded of the relevant history. The sometimes dreadful history of the past couple centuries (not least two world wars) can be seen basically as self-serving reactionary resistance to Modernity, at the feet of traditional entwined bastons of authority of Monarchy / Nation / Church.Putin’s Russia is such a vestige, which also will lose, though at less cost than otherwise.

"...in all three confrontations since the nineteenth century, it was Russian action, motivated by domestic concerns, that spurred European or Western efforts at strategic containment"
It could just as easily be argued that the author's 1st cold war was started by Napoleon's invasion of Russia in 1812. Russia would not have emerged as a principal victor if not invaded.
Similarly, it could be argued that Russia would never have been in a position to install communist governments in eastern Europe at the end of WWII if Hitler had not invaded in 1941.
If Russia is acting as a reactionary force, it is in reaction to western pressure. One can disagree with the Russia's learned response to this pressure (I do), but not to its reality.

Interesting how the massive natural gas deposit of Crimea, and the oil of Ukraine, are consistently omitted in almost every story concerning the region.

Putin is prudent in NOT allowing 'the West' any further intrusion towards Russia, being that the only motivation of 'the West' is to help itself to the natural resources while concurrently dismantling Russia.

This story is poorly written. If the U.S. were threatened in the same manner, the actions taken to date by Russia in defending itself would pale in comparison. In another scenario, if Russia were to attempt to invade EU countries, the response would likely also pale in comparison to the controlled actions exhibited by Russia to date.

To put it in a more simplistic manner, lets return to REALITY. Crimea has chosen to be part of Russia...by public vote. Russia and Crimea had an amicable relationship prior to such a vote, in which Russia had permission to come to Crimea absent restrictions. Thus, there was never an invasion--'invasion' being a story STILL propagated in U.S. and European news in an attempt to foster public support for an all-out war to take Crimea and Ukraine (and their sizeable, respective cache of natural resources), by force, under the facade of, 'saving peoples from the terrible Russians'.

Perhaps, 'spelled out' as in the previous paragraph, the reality of the situation will make sense to those whom have swallowed U.S. propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

The U.S. is the instigator here, placing the populace of the EU in imminent danger, all because it has (erroneously) already decided that Russia is ripe for the taking. (Part of the motivation is the need to fortify its economy, but adding that explanation may entail writing several pages at the least, so I will mot elaborate.)

IF this situation...U.S. manufactured conflict...does escalate to complete and strict military engagement, the U.S. is to blame...though the majority of the losses may be in the EU--the lap dog of the U.S.

Putin still thinks that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a huge disaster, paint it whatever colour you want the Ukraine and the Crimea were invaded by Russia, and although NATO might be moving Eastwards it is not a threat to Russia. Putin wants Russia to have great power status, however, he is going about it the wrong way.

Geopolitics has an enormous influence on history and the USA-Russian relationship has since the 19th century been shaped by mutual animosity. The messianic/ideological adventurism of both the USA and the Soviet Union in the 20th century added a potent catalyst to the geo-political tensions.
Since the end of the Cold War, and the shift of the central axis of the international system to the Asia-Pacific region, both the USA and Russia have had to recalibrate their geo-political strategies for dealing with that shift.
The current conflict between the two powers is now driven by the need to be major players on the Euro-Asian landmass and in the Asia-Pacific region - while China with its strategy of "peaceful rise" has gamed both.

Vladislav Inozemtsev gives a fascinating insight into Russia's penchant for creating a state of enmity in foreign relations since 1820s. He names episodes in Russian history, which were marked by tensions and conflicts with its European neighbours between the 1830s and the 1850s. The decades from 1946 to 1989 went down in history as the Cold War era, known for the hostile yet non-violent relationship between the Soviet Union and the US.
Like his predecessors, Czars Alexander I (1777-1825) and Nicholas I (1796-1855) Vladimir Putin embraces reactionary conservatism. Since Napoleon's disastrous defeat by Alexander I at the battle of Borodino outside Moscow during the French invasion in September 1812, Russia emerged "as the most conservative – or, more accurately, reactionary – force in Europe." Inspired by Czar Alexander, Austria, Prussia and Russia formed the Holy Alliance in 1815, which vowed to promote the influence of Christian principles in the affairs of nations.
Divisions ran deep within the Alliance. Nicholas I ascended the throne after the death of his brother, Alexander I. In the 1830s alarmed by a series of unrest across Europe the autocratic czar was determined to crush the revolts in Poland (1830-1831) and in Hungary (1848-1849). The weakness of the Ottoman empire provided opportunities for European interference in defence of the Christian populations. France under Louis Napoleon sought to secure concessions for the Catholic church in Palestine, Czar Nicholas planed to carve up the European part of Turkey under the pretext of protecting the Orthodox Christians. Britain and France objected to Russian expansionism and demanded Russia to end the occupation of the Danubian Principalities (Modavia and Walachia), which prompted a Turkish retaliation. Britain and France entered the fray, and Russia lost the Crimean War "spectacularly in 1856."
The Post-WWII era witnessed tensions between the USA and the Soviet Union, as a result of ideological differences, disagreements over Germany, the Korean War, superpower foreign policy overseas, and the nuclear arms race. No doubt Winston Churchill's 1946 speech in Fulton, Missouri paved the way for Harry Truman's containment policy. He announced that an iron curtain had descended across the continent of Europe, and accused the Soviet Union of trying to control Eastern Europe. The Kremlin kept its satellite states away from Truman's Marshall Plan, and Stalin subsequently imposed a blockade on West Berlin.
The author points out there is "much in common" between today's political climate in Russia and "the two previous confrontations" in history. Like in the 1820s and late 1940s, "Russia is aggressively rejecting Western values and opposing the US. Though no one is threatening to attack Russia, anti-Western hysteria is being used once again to divert attention from domestic economic challenges and consolidate support for the country’s leader." In an effort to emulate the expansionist policies of Czar Nicholas, Putin embarks on military forays.
The author maintains the West is not “dragging” Russia into another Cold War, saying Russia were to blame for "all three confrontations since the nineteenth century." Its unilateral action were "motivated by domestic concerns" and perceived threat from outside, "that spurred European or Western efforts at strategic containment." The author is critical of Russia's annexation of Crimea and support of separatism in eastern Ukraine. He sees the West's reaction to Russia's aggression as not much different from the annexation of Wallachia in 1853 and the blockade of West Berlin in 1948.
While the West has "natural allies" that stand up to the Kremlin, Russia has few friends and is rather isolated. "All three times, the country’s leaders displayed a willingness to blame others for its homegrown follies, alienate all of its potential allies and sympathizers, and waste its human and economic resources. Based on this history, it seems likely that Russia’s effort to contain perceived enemies will lead only to economic collapse and political disarray, forcing the country’s elites to step away from their geopolitical aspirations and turn to urgent domestic issues." Unfortunately Putin indulges in nostalgic nationalism. He is blinded by power and glory, which impedes him from learning mistakes in history and looking forward into the future.

The only way to break this intermittent cycle is to complete the previous job, that is to let Russia shut out and let it rot until it implodes from within.
A new Russia of much smaller size - e.g. like Moskovia before expansions - AND NECESSARILY STRIPPED OF ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DRSTRUCTION AND OF ITS VETO IN UN SECURITY COUNCIL - will become a friendly, reliable and responsible European democracy fully integrated in EU and NATO and in peace with all its neighbors for many decades to come.
Amen! 😆

Fair enough, but let's make a distinction between a historically European entanglement with Russia and an American one. The latter is primarily one of ideology while the former is more or less one of geopolitics. Absent a communist ideology which no longer exists, their are very few natural of historical animosities between the US and Russian. This is the basis of the 'lasting peace' that some seem so hell bent on undermining.

1. Crimean war is a hot war between ottoman empire(britain) & Russia.
2.The author is saying russia should not reject western values(oh my god).NATO is patrolling russian borders still it is russia with 1.8 trillion dollar economy who is attacking 35 trillion dollar economies .
3 Color revolutions ?Isn't hungary part of austro-hungary empire and poland ,at that time ,part of russian,austrian &prussian empires?How does the polish revolt & hungary revolution creates anti-russia sentiments in whole continent?
4. it seems the SFR 's including RSFR have decided to end the Soviet union.Not exhaustion of military &economic potential.Also there is lot of propaganda by west & other means of war
5."What natural allies in crimean war? How the west includes ottoman empire?
6. In 1853 there are empires .Berlin blockade in 1961 right?so ,the author is saying the so-called west which extends from atlantic to black sea ,but exludes russia, will wage hot war just like in 1853 or cold war1990's to break-up russia.But the author is forgetting Russia is not a union of republics like soviet union .
7.Finally ,this article is so wrong

1) Russia =/= the USSR. The Union of Soviet States dissolved, yet NATO, created to counter the USSR on the European continent, has continued to expand. Right up to the border of Russia. Historically, Russia survived because of expansion. Hitler and Napoleon learned this as they marched across the expanse of Russia. Russians have a right to be nervous as the West, egged on by the USA, moved closer to their borders.

The Ukraine government was elected and then overthrown, in part by Western (aka USA) meddling and support of revolt. Having a pro western Ukraine was the last straw and Putin needed a show of force.

2) Unlike with the USSR, the USA and Russia have areas of commonality where we can work together with. Islamic terrorism, the ascendency of China, Syria, etc. All areas where we could form a common bond. Furthermore, if there is every hope of further nuclear disarmament, we need to collaborate with Russia instead of demonizing them.

The situation we have now with Russia is disgusting and embarrassing. Democrats have resorted to McCarthyism in order to resist and defame the elected President. We look like a laughing stock around the world as Russia is blamed for every one of our ills.

Russia possibly hacked Podesta. Unfortunately, the content of those emails were obscured by main stream media (which is less informative than RT). HRC lost the campaign because Democrats failed to realize that the voters on both sides wanted an outsider candidate. She ignored her working class base and focused on winning the popular vote (California and NYC), which she won, but that isn't how you get elected.

But instead of introspection and trying to make real changes to the platform to appeal to people who can win the election, Democrats decide to ruin any chance of a relationship with a major regional power and nuclear country. Real smart.

1) I disagree that NATO =/= USA. IMO, it is largely a tool for the US to wield influence.

2) No doubt that these countries would prefer to be aligned with Western Europe than Russia. Sadly, great powers trample the will of smaller powers. I fully respect their desire to move towards the west, but I also realize that their geographic and historic position causes complexities.

The USA acted much like Russia during the cold war with our sphere of influence. The USA would routinely influence elections, overthrow non-Western leaders or prop up dictatorships to keep those countries aligned with the USA.

Realpolitik isn't pretty, but it is a way of life (for better or worse).

3) Ukraine - You are correct. I failed to include the counter to this, that while the US meddled to bring about a pro-western government, Russia equally influenced things. My issue isn't with the carrot that both sides gave (loans from Moscow/EU Loans), my issue is with overthrowing a government because the west didn't get their way.

Russia has many, many faults. I simply detest living in a black and white world, where USA = Good & Russia = Bad. And I recognize the descending position that the USA is in and the world we can choose to live in - one where we collaborate with other nations or one where we demonize other nations while ignoring our own sins.

“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”

The Baltic people wanted to join the NATO alliance because they wanted to be spared the backwardness of Russian rule again.

NATO =/= the USA

If the Russian-Soviets would’ve increased their standard of living in the past they wouldn’t be so opposed to Russia in the current. Especially after the illegal annexation of Crimea.

I believe you mean the Ukrainian Civil War - obviously, the decision to be either for Europe or against Russia was not a unanimous decision among the population. You imply or at least downplay Russian involvement in attempting to prop-up the previous Ukrainian government or in other border countries.

'effort to contain perceived enemies will lead only to economic collapse and political disarray, forcing the country’s elites to step away from their geopolitical aspirations and turn to urgent domestic issues'
Which country was this about?

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.